AMENDMENT NO. 12 OFFERED BY MR. ACKERMAN 

 The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed in part C of 

House Report 111-126. 

[Page: H5976]

 Mr. ACKERMAN. I rise in support of the amendment which I have at the desk. 

 The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. 

 The text of the amendment is as follows: 

 Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Ackerman: 

 Page 259, after line 22, insert the following (with the correct sequential provision designations 

[replacing the numbers currently shown for such designations]) and conform the table of 

contents accordingly:

 SEC. 826. COLLEGE POINT MARINE TRANSFER STATION, NEW YORK.

 (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the Federal Aviation Administration, in determining whether 

the proposed College Point Marine Transfer Station in New York City, New York, if 

constructed, would constitute a hazard to air navigation, has not followed published policy 

statements of the Federal Aviation Administration, including--

 (1) Advisory Circular Number 150/5200-33B 2, entitled ``Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on 

or Near Airports'';

 (2) Advisory Circular Number 150/5300-13, entitled ``Airport Design''; and

 (3) the publication entitled ``Policies and Procedures Memorandum--Airports Division'', 

Number 5300.1B, dated Feb. 5, 1999.

 (b) Designation of Transfer Station as Hazard to Air Navigation.--The Administrator of the 

Federal Aviation Administration shall take such actions as may be necessary to designate the 

proposed College Point Marine Transfer Station in New York City, New York, as a hazard to air 

navigation.

 The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 464, the gentleman from New York 

(Mr. Ackerman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. 

 The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York. 
 Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer this simple amendment on behalf of myself and the 

gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). This has to do with safety trumping garbage. It has to 

do with common sense. 

 The City of New York Department of Sanitation has proposed a marine transfer station. These 

are generally built on the shoreline because trash is compacted there and put on barges and then 

carted away on the Long Island Sound or the East River or the Hudson River. 

 Of all the shoreline places to build this, would you suspect the one place that would be picked 

by the Department of Sanitation would be directly opposite one of the biggest active runways, 

one of the most active runways in the whole United States of America, where planes take off and 

land approximately every 20 seconds. I'm talking about LaGuardia Airport, the airport with the 

largest number of flights in New York City. 

 This is an aerial view of the airport. This is LaGuardia Airport's runway. LaGuardia Airport, 

most people don't know, has only two runways for all of these great number of flights. 

 The garbage plant is planned right over here, opposite the runway, 2,000 feet away. The rules 

and regulations of the FAA, which is what we're asking for in this amendment to be implemented 

and utilized, say that you should not put a garbage treatment plant anywhere near the runway 

protection zone which is currently 2,000 feet away. This is 2,000 feet--less than that--according 

to this map which we downloaded from Google. 

 There will be a new flight slope plan implemented that the FAA has approved which says it 

can't be within 2,500 feet. Why would you put a garbage facility, an attractant to birds, less than 

2,000 feet away from one of the most active runways? 

 The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall) requested of the FAA, they declined, and Secretary 

of Transportation LaHood overruled them and released the number of bird strikes at airports 

around the country. Last year there were 87 bird strikes at LaGuardia Airport alone. 

 Now, our pilots are good. You might have seen a little news report that said they can even land 

on water. And indeed, that's what happened when one of our jets was struck by birds. 

 Garbage is an attractant to birds. The FAA rules and recommendations say don't put these 

things in the runway protection zone. Our amendment simply says to the FAA, you have to 

follow your own guidelines. 

 Put it anywhere else. There's a political concern here, and the political concern is not a NIMBY 

concern. This will most likely be in mine or Mr. Crowley's district. It borders both of our districts 

right now. 

 This site is the least politically damaging to us because it's in a commercial area. Any other 

place that they will move it will cause us some political concerns. But those political concerns 

that we will have to suffer if they move this anywhere up and down the coast in either of our 

districts is not as important to the safety of the flying public. 
 I reserve the balance of my time. 

 Mr. MICA. I rise in opposition to the amendment. 

 The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes. 

 Mr. MICA. This amendment, unfortunately, is a local issue that we're putting into a Federal 

piece of legislation that is very important for safety; and the gentleman, who I greatly respect, 

Mr. Ackerman, is trying to do the best he can to make arguments that this dump poses safety 

concerns and hazards to aviation. I don't have the capability of making that determination, nor 

does Congress. We rely on the FAA. They have looked at this. They say that it does not pose a 

hazard to air navigation. 

 That being said, I like Mr. Ackerman, and sometimes I find myself in the situation like Mr. 

Ackerman, and you try to use any means you can to satisfy concerns about a project, whether it 

be local, State or Federal to the best benefit of your constituents. 

 So therefore, I am not going to call for a vote. I'm not going to actively oppose. I probably will 

quietly say no to this and let it pass. 

 I reserve the balance of my time. 

 Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield briefly to the Congressman from New York (Mr. Crowley). 

 Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I listened very carefully to the objections. 

And let me just say that if LaGuardia Airport is forced to close for 10 minutes, it sets off an 

explosion that affects the entire flight paths of the Eastern seacoast. So whatever does happen, 

we were very fortunate that we had Captain Sullenberger, who was able to land Flight 1549 

safely. 

 This is not just a local concern. This is a concern, I think nationally as well. The number of 

geese or fowl that disrupt air travel happens more often than the public was led to believe. 

 I think that building a facility for waste transfer within 2,000 feet of the runway is simply 

ludicrous. We shouldn't be doing that. I think that the City of New York and the Department of 

Sanitation needs to rethink this one and send it back to the drawing board. 

 Gary Ackerman and myself are calling foul right now. This should not happen. We're sending 

that message home to our folks back in New York. 

 Mr. MICA. I reserve the balance of my time to close. 

 Mr. ACKERMAN. I would yield back the balance of my time. 

 Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the time remaining? 
 The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. 

 Mr. MICA. I yield myself the balance of my time. 

 

[Time: 16:30]

 Well, this is the conclusion, really, on the debate of the FAA authorization. It ends with a 

question of whether we should close the dump or keep the dump open. 

 As I said, I have the greatest respect for Mr. Ackerman and also for Mr. Crowley, and I know 

what they're trying to do for their constituents. So I rise in very quiet opposition, but I do have to 

state the facts, that this is not a matter that really should be in the bill, but we'll try to assist our 

colleagues as they're trying to do the best they can for their constituents. 

 On the larger question of the bill, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I also rise in opposition to 

the bill, somewhat quietly. Every Member can vote the way they'd like. I'm not telling or asking 

Republican Members to vote one way or another, but you do have to be the judge of what we're 

doing here today. It is important that we do reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration. 

We've had a 2-year delay, not of any fault of my colleagues under the great leadership of Mr. 

Oberstar, Mr. Costello, and Mr. Petri, our ranking 

[Page: H5977]

member. We've done our level best to make certain that we have the policy, the projects, and the 

funding to have the safest aviation system in the world. They can be very proud of their work. 

 Now, we do have some differences of opinion on some particular provisions. This was voted 

on before, and some circumstances have changed. We have a new President. He is trying to 

resolve a very contentious labor issue. I don't like putting that issue in now. That's different than 

when we voted on it before. We did have a different President and a different situation. So here I 

am, a Republican, saying we need to support our President, but we need to do that and to not set 

a bad precedence for all labor issues to be drug before Congress in this manner. 

 Then, on the question of job creation and job killing, I don't know how many jobs are in the 

provisions for insisting on this mandated inspection of foreign repair stations. That sounds good, 

but it reverts us back to a time when we used to do that in the United States. Twice a year, we 

would inspect every one of these stations whether we needed to or not, and that was a diversion 

of our resources. We changed that to a risk-based system, and that's what we need to maintain 

both domestically and internationally. 

 Finally, 95 percent of this bill was debated before. There is an antitrust immunity provision that 

does repeal some provisions we've given to airline alliances. It's a job killer. It's estimated to be 

over 100,000 jobs. I don't know how many. At a time when people will come to us as we return 

to our districts over Memorial Day weekend, we can't leave here and say that we've eliminated 

more jobs. Many of these jobs, whether they're repair stations or the airline industry, are goodpaying jobs that people need so desperately today. 
 So the question before us is how we vote on this particular legislation at this time and place 

and with these particular provisions. Some are good. Some are bad. I choose to vote ``no'' today. 

I'm sorry. 

 I yield back the balance of my time. 

 The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 

York (Mr. Ackerman). 

 The amendment was agreed to.